Mickey Mouse Degrees

No degree is "useless." There are only useless people who spend half their time comparing themselves and their degrees to what other people are doing as if it actually mattered. If you want to go to a STEM degree, go do it. It'd bore the nuts off of me, but each to their own, right? Someone doing a degree in, say, Viking Studies obviously has an affinity for the subject. Since when did higher education become entirely about job prospects? What about simply bettering yourself? Educating yourself in an area you have an interest in?

To get the certificates, obviously. Talk about asking a stupid question.



Not nearly as many as there are graduates, every year.

You pay nearly £30k to get a piece of paper that gives you the chance to get a better job.

If that piece of paper say 2:2 in history from mediocre university, its not really worth much if we're honest.

Well since people are saying that beta arts subjects are comparable to science subjects I must add my 2 cents.



lmao, whilst that could be true - I don't see the point in being on a student forum and lying to a load of teens who I will never meet irl

Of course it does. Why the **** would you spend the best part of £30k on a qualification that results in you getting a job you could have got without it?

The entire point of a degree is to open up new vocational options to you that you didn't have upon finishing your A-levels. If a degree doesn't do that, then it is, by definition, useless.

What even is a 'beta arts subject'?

Edit: you come across as very arrogant.

English Literature. History. Specifically.

In my eyes the only A Level subjects that should be studied are languages, math a levels, sciences and Economics.

Anyone doing anything other than the aforementioned subjects has the intelligence of an animal and has an inferior intellect than those doing real subjects.

No, you can't get into the graduate job market without a degree. Next.

And quite often, you can't get into the graduate job market WITH a degree, because not all degrees are equally useful.

That is the entire point of this discussion.



having a USEFUL degree is even more vital. Getting an extremely popular, extremely mediocre degree from a mediocre university will not get you a graduate job. It won't get you any job that you couldn't have got with A-levels.

you again, you don't need any kind of SPECIFIC degree to get a graduate job, so whether it's useful or not, no one cares.

I know plenty of people who did 'mediocre' degrees from London Met who have graduate jobs like 2months after graduating. So instead of just regurgitating stats that you read on 'ignorant idiots.com' you should actually do more research and then you'll understand the real world.

you again, you don't need any kind of SPECIFIC degree to get a graduate job, so whether it's useful or not, no one cares.

That doesn't counter the point that mediocre degree>no degree when it comes to measuring how likely you are to get a job. Mathematically, it lets you apply for more, and it arguably makes you more competitive in areas where the degree isn't required.

No one is arguing better degrees = poor degrees. We're arguing A degree>no degree. And we're arguing that humanities/social science degrees =/= poor degrees. So far you have completely failed to argue against these points.

The point is, that every year there are (say) twice as many graduates as graduate jobs. So for 50% of graduates, their degree is effectively useless, because they end up taking a job they could have got 3 years earlier.

Its just simple maths, I don't see how you can argue with it. The number may not be exactly twice the amount, but the principle stands: as long as the number of graduates > number of graduate jobs, then some degrees will have been useless, by definition.

English, History, Philosophy, Psychology, Media, Film, Photography, Art/Art History.

It's not the fact these students don't work hard either, it's the fact many crappy unis don't offer placements/work experience or build on work skills - it's all extremely flowery.
I'm an English student, and I can admit my degree is going to do crap all for me in the real world and am now working towards a college training course I could of done without my degree and work experience.

University should stop offering 18 year olds who don't have much direction these degrees which don't prepare them for the real world, will get them a low paying job when realisticaly they could of just skipped the degree part.
Instead of advertisting it as "Build upon skills for a career" they should just put "learn more about your subject."
Because a lot of my friends who have graduated with BA's are currently in jobs which don't need a degree, and Ive instead chosen to skip classes, go to work experience instead and save up my loan for a college course which will actually get me a job.

Your post assumes that graduates can only search for jobs for one year. And the fact remains; if you want a shot at that 50%, you need a degree.

Good for you, what course are you doing?

We need to be honest with prospective students, certain degrees are highly unlikely to really enhance your job prospects in a meaningful way.

That's £30k in fees and another probably £50k in lost earnings down the drain, and for what, exactly?

No it doesn't - the ratios remain constant because every extra year you apply for jobs, there are 20,000 more graduates to compete with.


But if you don't really have a particularly relevant or useful degree, you don't really HAVE a shot in the first place.


This really is basic maths, its shocking that you're attempting to deny the blatantly obviousl

English Literature. History. Specifically.

In my eyes the only A Level subjects that should be studied are languages, math a levels, sciences and Economics.

Anyone doing anything other than the aforementioned subjects has the intelligence of an animal and has an inferior intellect than those doing real subjects.

The whole 'mickey mouse degree debate' is nothing more institutional violence agaisnt women, what we see when we observe the gender ratios of the so called 'mickey mouse' subjects is that participants are overwhelmingly female! This is just a red herring used to devalue the efforts of women in academia in order to reinforce patriachy.

English, History, Philosophy, Psychology, Media, Film, Photography, Art/Art History.

It's not the fact these students don't work hard either, it's the fact many crappy unis don't offer placements/work experience or build on work skills - it's all extremely flowery.
I'm an English student, and I can admit my degree is going to do crap all for me in the real world and am now working towards a college training course I could of done without my degree and work experience.

University should stop offering 18 year olds who don't have much direction these degrees which don't prepare them for the real world, will get them a low paying job when realisticaly they could of just skipped the degree part.
Instead of advertisting it as "Build upon skills for a career" they should just put "learn more about your subject."
Because a lot of my friends who have graduated with BA's are currently in jobs which don't need a degree, and Ive instead chosen to skip classes, go to work experience instead and save up my loan for a college course which will actually get me a job.